None of your links say jury trials are going to be abolished. They say the proposal is to make some trials currently conducted by a jury judge-only. Is this you repeating your honesty or your reading comprehension?
The majority of crime falls within the remit of < 3 year sentencing, so the majority of trials would have trial by jury removed. Your reading of what is happening is so pedantic as to be outwith the realm of reasonable understanding.
For the vast majority of people, no. For every single one of them, trial by jury is gone. It has been abolished for them.
And then, how long do you think until the world of political spin pushes for the removal of that right for murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc? How many will be willing to stick their neck out to defend those people’s right to a trial by jury?
Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It’ll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don’t approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It’ll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.
What’s your goal here? What do you think you’re achieving by being a condescending pedant?
What’s to gain by defending the removal of a means in which The People prevent miscarriages of justice, which has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries?
Do you think David Lammy will personally hand you a get out jail free card, or is it because your ego is so pathetically fragile you can’t stand on occasion being wrong about something?
I don’t like throwing around the word bootlicker, it’s done far too much in online discourse, but you’re acting like the epitome of a bootlicker right now.
Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn’t fully support me at every turn. You’re happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that’s not good enough. The ends don’t justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there’s no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.
Condescending
You can’t answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I’d have more respect for you if you had just said “no” and doubled down on the lie.
Bootlicker
In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There’s a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It’ll set you free, as they say.
You mean like how you’ve just written a bunch of lies?
Jury trials:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5lxg2l0lqo
https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Jury-trials
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/uk-court-reforms-jury-magistrates-b2992696.html
https://defendourjuries.net/
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/64854/jury-trial-rights
Criminalise property damage:
Not under terrorism laws.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/un-experts-urge-united-kingdom-not-misuse-terrorism-laws-against-protest
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/breaking-down-the-court-of-appeal-judgment-on-palestine-actions-proscription/
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/06/uk-terrorist-sentence-for-palestine-action-marks-dangerous-move-against-right-to-protest/
None of your links say jury trials are going to be abolished. They say the proposal is to make some trials currently conducted by a jury judge-only. Is this you repeating your honesty or your reading comprehension?
No dispute from me there.
Also known as abolishing the jury.
Have another source, why not:
https://www.justice.org.uk/briefings/plans-to-restrict-the-right-to-jury-trial
The majority of crime falls within the remit of < 3 year sentencing, so the majority of trials would have trial by jury removed. Your reading of what is happening is so pedantic as to be outwith the realm of reasonable understanding.
Simple question for you: after this is enacted, will there or will there not be jury trials in England and Wales?
For the vast majority of people, no. For every single one of them, trial by jury is gone. It has been abolished for them.
And then, how long do you think until the world of political spin pushes for the removal of that right for murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc? How many will be willing to stick their neck out to defend those people’s right to a trial by jury?
Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It’ll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don’t approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It’ll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.
Actually maybe lemonade would be better today.
What’s your goal here? What do you think you’re achieving by being a condescending pedant?
What’s to gain by defending the removal of a means in which The People prevent miscarriages of justice, which has been a cornerstone of the justice system for centuries?
Do you think David Lammy will personally hand you a get out jail free card, or is it because your ego is so pathetically fragile you can’t stand on occasion being wrong about something?
I don’t like throwing around the word bootlicker, it’s done far too much in online discourse, but you’re acting like the epitome of a bootlicker right now.
Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn’t fully support me at every turn. You’re happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that’s not good enough. The ends don’t justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there’s no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.
You can’t answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I’d have more respect for you if you had just said “no” and doubled down on the lie.
In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There’s a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It’ll set you free, as they say.